England Riots

Riots are friggin stupid, I don't understand the reasoning behind them, all they cause is turmoil, damage and stress on the country and government and in some cases like this one, take people's lives. Problems should be solved peacefully with each group coming together and solving it together but of course in this world, thats impossible because theres always some idiots trying to start stupid shit for no reason and only to get a aggravated reaction from the government or law enforcement.

I really think it's because you have a bias against me. The first topics I ever replied to you were in opposition to what you were saying, therefore I'm presented as an enemy. You're not as objective as you probably think. Nobody is.

The correct situation was not "Oh man, I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about, I need to look it up and call him stupid for not knowing about it! Hurr hurr hurr!"

It was simply that I knew what a recession was in general, I also know that it's been stated before by experts that the recession ended quite some time ago, when exactly, I don't know. Why it was stated it ended, I don't know either, although I knew the general definition of a recession from economics class. Therefore, I read on it the first place I thought, then summarized it which happened to be similar.

I'm also not stating "This is my knowledge, nobody else knows it, I came up with it," I think it'd be redundant to do so. Also, because this is in text, there is a bias that anything you say here because it is in text that is similar to somewhere else is plagiarism. You should be comparing this more to a conversation, and if I happened to say something I read earlier in an article in a face to face conversation, you would never accuse me of plagiarism in the first place.

In other words, you're silly. You're silly because you brought up a plagiarism debate in a conversation. It's not like I'm publishing an article for people to take resource from. Stop trying to act like you're so ahead of the bend with everyone, it gets on my nerves and probably everyone you do it to.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
Officially, no. In the economic-science definition of the word, the recession ended in July 2009. What you're referring to by the word which is the lay-mans speak version, recession is ongoing hardship. Which is fine, but don't refer to it as an actual recession.

A second recession may happen, the Dow Jones Industrial has dropped 500 points almost every day with a few days gaining minimal.

It's like calling a Mercedes Benz a Merc. A Mercedes isn't a Merc, a Mercury is a Merc.

I don't see how this is insulting Erik for is knowledge and propping myself up. Please, show where and I'll happily correct you.

[Mod Removal. Essentially "I can't intelligently contribute to the topic so I'll just curse." ]

-DeadApe.

I am more afraid of the riots in this very thread.

^

Agreed

Jagdgeschwader wrote:^

Agreed

Seconded

Jagdgeschwader wrote:I really think it's because you have a bias against me. The first topics I ever replied to you were in opposition to what you were saying, therefore I'm presented as an enemy. You're not as objective as you probably think. Nobody is.

Not at all, I encourage people to disagree with me. You insulted me initially and that differs from 'disagreement', but that hasn't changed you into my enemy. Prosecution complex much, hm? You're simply fun and I have no hostility, really.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
The correct situation was not "Oh man, I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about, I need to look it up and call him stupid for not knowing about it! Hurr hurr hurr!"

It was simply that I knew what a recession was in general, I also know that it's been stated before by experts that the recession ended quite some time ago, when exactly, I don't know. Why it was stated it ended, I don't know either, although I knew the general definition of a recession from economics class. Therefore, I read on it the first place I thought, then summarized it which happened to be similar.

You were condescending, demanding he restricts specific terms to an asserted standard, and implied his usage is INAPPROPRIATE LITERALLY relative to ACADEMIC terminologies. Nevertheless, his words were fine as a laymen's, delineating a separate definition, and the correction was unnecessary, imposing extraneous knowledge of alternate definitions.

Why correct him if it's unnecessary and demand compliance with an opitional standard, hmm? You were flaunting 'superior' knowledge, researched previously for the correction to be strict, and subsequently demanding adherence to it opposed to merely educating him. What's questionable is:

A, Motive - Taking an unnecessary action to affirm the 'right' choice with terminology.
B, Expression of Motive - Researching the essential information to reinforce A, exhibited with plagarism, for the motive of A (questionable), which indicates determination to be 'right'.
C, Implementation of Motive - Insisting that A is right and he should follow it, combining a determination to be right (B) with a desire to enforce personal conceptions of right (C).

Therefore, an adamant effort was exerted to correct his usages pedantically which were fine, implicatng a desire to look/be right whilst it's 'silly', which exposes a lack of desire to educate (focused on being right, not educating him or merely listing facts).


Happened to be similar? It was essentially identical (far form paraphrasing, promoted in academia as rote learning) and I think that's plagarism of text whilst representing it as YOUR words. There were no references and it was stated as implicitly your text when parellel to an article sentence. Memory or directly extracted, it's irrelevant whilst it's evident the text was a copied excerpt (c'mon, it's too improbable for the corresponding linguistical structure to be coincidental).

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
I'm also not stating "This is my knowledge, nobody else knows it, I came up with it," I think it'd be redundant to do so. Also, because this is in text, there is a bias that anything you say here because it is in text that is similar to somewhere else is plagiarism. You should be comparing this more to a conversation, and if I happened to say something I read earlier in an article in a face to face conversation, you would never accuse me of plagiarism in the first place.

Originality is impossible for anyone but a brilliant scholar these days, sure, and I'm not disagreeing with this notion. What I have said, though, is that copying material is wrong, distinct from:

1 - Interpretating material and expressing an opinion.
2 - Paraphrasing knowledge to education.
3 - Applying knowledge with critical thinking.

The issue is one of intellectual integrity, my friend, and you didn't achieve anything productive but expounding upon a definition for the wrong motive WHILST simultaneously COPYING the DEFINITION. You confessed, by the way, that you had to research it before, incapable of recllecting the knowledge wholly (which was unnecessary to share, anyway).

You weren't sharing in the moment through friendly discourse; you took time researching the 'knowledge' to enforce it after. That fact, coupled with the dubious context, is what has me QUESTIONING you further.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
In other words, you're silly. You're silly because you brought up a plagiarism debate in a conversation. It's not like I'm publishing an article for people to take resource from. Stop trying to act like you're so ahead of the bend with everyone, it gets on my nerves and probably everyone you do it to.

You take time to APPEAR ahead /falsely/ and executing pathetic corrections of trivialities as the BASIS. How are you not a vapid quack if doing these activities for nothing obvious but feeling/looking right to categorized knowldge?

Pathetic boy, calling me silly when your behaviour has been revealed as such. Mine? I'm being quite reactive, that's all, and I won't stop replying. Want to research my choice of 'pathetic' and tell me how it's so semantically wrong after much effort to conform that? Or, if you have a vague memory of how it may be, desperately seek that to affirm that to be oh-so-right in public?

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
Officially, no. In the economic-science definition of the word, the recession ended in July 2009. What you're referring to by the word which is the lay-mans speak version, recession is ongoing hardship. Which is fine, but don't refer to it as an actual recession.

A second recession may happen, the Dow Jones Industrial has dropped 500 points almost every day with a few days gaining minimal.

It's like calling a Mercedes Benz a Merc. A Mercedes isn't a Merc, a Mercury is a Merc.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
I don't see how this is insulting Erik for is knowledge and propping myself up. Please, show where and I'll happily correct you.

Really? Wow.

PS: You 'knew' it already but confessed to researching it ? That's why I call bullshit, anyway, and act on the predication of prior research (to corroborate or crystallize a hunch of knowledge, I don't care which) with my statements.

Alright, enough with the derailing.

Take it to the chatbox, or PM's, but not in this thread, as the above has nothing to do with the England Riots. I don't want to see any more off topic posts in this thread. If you wish to respond, take it to PM's.

- eaustinn36